No Escape

No Escape is a thriller set in an Asian country so unstable it doesn’t even have a name. The extent to which the film cares at all for the actual citizenry of that nation is sharply delineated from the start, when an opening scene of a violent coup against the ruling prime minister cuts abruptly to a white family laughing and teasing each other on a flight to that country. The family lands just in time to be embroiled in massive violence, ensuring that all focus is directed away from the citizens caught in the middle of a hostile takeover and onto these cherubic innocents who are terrorized by faceless brutes.

Owen Wilson digs deep into his bag of shocked and concerned faces as Jack, an out-of-work sanitation engineer who uproots his family to Asia to take a job with a multinational corporation. The most quintessential Wilson reaction comes at the start of his character’s ordeal, when, somehow, throngs of protesters and cops converge on Jack’s location to his surprise, despite making enough noise to be mistaken for artillery bombardment. Startled to see market streets suddenly barren but for the armed insurrectionists and equally violent riot police, Jack flashes a look of muted, futilely dignified panic that could fit in any Wes Anderson movie just before a cartoonish foot chase breaks out. Yet as the camera stays close to Wilson’s face for the remainder of the film, it teases out an increasingly primal edge from the actor as Jack loses more and more of his inhibitions in defense of his family.

Unfortunately for Jack, the script sets up his family as a collective of fools whose every move only puts them in greater danger. Jack’s children, Lucy (Sterling Jerins) and Beeze (Claire Geare), seemingly compete to see who can better jeopardize their own survival, but this is Beeze’s game to lose. Think of the most useless characters in all of horror, combine all their traits, and distill them into the concentrated form of a six-year-old and you get Beeze. When silence is of the utmost importance, she’ll scream bloody murder over dropping a stuffed animal. Having narrowly survived a rooftop massacre, she instantly complains of hunger. Perhaps the only redeeming moment of the entire film is the beautifully absurd scene of Jack, desperate to get his family away from their overrun hotel, throwing Beeze to a rooftop across the way. The scene gets bonus points for being, hilariously, in slow motion, but loses some for the fact that she survives to continue to weigh down her family. Lake Bell, playing Jack’s wife, Annie, regularly gets reduced to either a means of keeping the kids calm or a target of the full extent of the marauding locals’ savagery.

The only way that this film could be any more racist is if the Dwyer family holed up with Lillian Gish and waited for the Klan to save them.

Jack’s arc follows a base story of survivalism, but one so stripped down that it willfully obscures every possible detail that could complicate it. At times, this leads to inadvertent comedy; by way of a backstory, Jack mentions once developing a valve that was “almost a big deal,” a line that rates as one of the most bewildering, meaningless lines of exposition to ever exist outside of fantasy or science fiction. For the most part, however, the simplifications occur in the precise sculpting of the film’s setting, deliberately positioning the Thai shooting location as a generic nation to minimize offense. Yet this de-politicization has the inverse effect of exacerbating the material’s most repugnant qualities. By removing the context of constant, West-backed upheaval that has affected Thailand throughout its contemporary history, the film presents the indigenous people as a mindless horde. Director John Erick Dowdle films them in choppy, incomprehensible shots that dehumanize them further into a zombie-like force meant solely to terrify, which makes it so much easier to cheer when a white person kills one of them.

The only way that this film could be any more racist is if the Dwyer family holed up with Lillian Gish and waited for the Klan to save them. And, in its own way, the film approximates even this, valorizing Pierce Brosnan’s semi-retired government operative Hammond, whose sinister past in the region is forgiven for the knowledge it provides him in aiding the Dwyers whenever doom seems upon them. Hammond gets a speech near the end meant as a sop to any objections one might have with the rampant xenophobia, ambivalently explaining that people like him destabilized these countries in order for people like Jack to come make money off of them. Were the film not so resolutely ahistorical, Hammond’s confession might have had bite. Instead, it’s the final straw, an empty, smug gesture to assign meaning to an insipid provocation, something Banksy might have dreamed up while painting a mural of Mickey Mouse doing blow with Angela Merkel. No Escape posits a scenario in which the entire world around its characters becomes unintelligible and nightmarish, yet the scariest proposition of all is that we’re no closer to ridding ourselves of movies like these in the 21st century.

Slant is reaching more readers than ever before, but advertising revenue across the Internet is falling fast, hitting independently owned and operated publications like ours the hardest. We’ve watched many of our fellow media sites fall by the way side in recent years, but we’re determined to stick around.

We’ve never asked our readers for financial support before, and we’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees. If you like what we do, however, please consider becoming a Slant patron.

So Thailand has suffered "constant, West-backed upheaval"? Bollocks. It's the only Southeast Asian country not to be colonised by a European power, and the only occupation in the last couple of centuries, since the Burmese in the 18th, was by Japan in WWII. And even then, they finessed it to keep fairly independent..

All the "upheavals" since WWII have been conflicts between military strongmen, communist insurgents, corrupt populists, and more recently Muslim separatists in the south.

If the West had a hand in any of that, it was well-concealed. The "West", if it had an agenda, would be to support whoever was in power so their investments in local industries (e.g. textiles, computer components), would be safe. Upheavals are bad for business. Every time the government changed they'd have to make a new round of payoffs.

Posted by AlanHK on 2015-10-31 11:53:49

My friend and I were left wondering which country the movie was in. Japan, China... I presumed China since Vietnam is close by. Okay, in some regards I get the negatives about the movie, but what they get points for is the movie itself. It really had a bit of panic feel to it, particularly when like the characters, we had no idea what was happening. You felt the urgency, the fear everything. When the helicopter was coming, something didn't feel right, and still it managed to keep you in suspense. I don't get why nobody else jumped when they saw the family doing it from the roof, until that guy did it late on and got shot. Still though, I was pretty much into it until the old James Bond saved them and gave a stupid reason for being there just to make us feel it makes sense lol. I don't understand what he said honestly, but yeah, the movie get points for the suspense and urgency it created. As for the story, well a lot of things left us in the dark. Where? Why? How?

Posted by Marie on 2015-09-13 12:00:44

Why is it that a certain demographic gets upset whenever a person speaks out AGAINST racism? Great review, Mr. Cole.

Posted by Brian Laverte on 2015-09-13 04:41:10

You make no sense...

Posted by Brian Laverte on 2015-09-13 04:12:33

This review is ridiculous. This is one of the reasons why racism is still around, because it is brought up like this all of the time. Hell, im racist because I'm not black. Its so stupid. So basically, what you are saying is that what happened in Tunisia is racist as well. Oops, i wasnt aware that only Americans or British people were allowed to attack other cultures, because WE are the ones who are always racist. What happened in this movie was quite similar to what has happened in other countries. I don't know if you are aware of extremist groups? Nope, of course not. If they aren't American or British, it doesnt exist.

Overall, I think this review is a piece of crap. Please, do us all a favour and don't write any more reviews. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Posted by Lisa Lou on 2015-09-11 07:41:30

No. The family does not have a dislike of the people there. They have a dislike of wanting to get murdered. And, as I pointed out, they're getting chased because they stand for everything that is wrong with America. Your use of xenophobia is woefully misguided and naive.

Posted by James Jackson on 2015-09-03 12:21:53

I don't know if I can live without your sympathy. And SJW was not used ironically, because the reviewer went in with "what's racist about this movie?" before they saw it. Classic SJW thinking.

Posted by James Jackson on 2015-09-03 12:19:57

Ugh. This is less of a film review than simply ignorantly kvetching about political correctness... "By removing the context of constant, West-backed upheaval that has affected Thailand throughout its contemporary history" You have to assume after reading this that the reviewer knows nothing at all about Thailand, and is simply assuming a colonial history that never existed. In fact, there are few countries in the world less infected by the dreaded disease of western influence.

Posted by paxtexana on 2015-08-30 15:35:12

I did read it, and felt it missed the point.

By the way, I don't think 'No Escape' was a very good movie. What husband and father, taking a job in a foreign country, brings along his wife and small children on the first trip? No one does that, even when the job's in France. And how does this political nightmare happen so quickly? Even in Rwanda, upon which the movie seems to be based, the denouement took some time to get rolling. Finally, why is this superbig multinational completely invisible? Nobody even leaves a note at the hotel? What happened to all the corporate presence?

So it had a ton of plot holes. But it was no more xenophobic than most in the genre, and none of them really focus on the home life of the bad guys. The reviewer was probably thinking of 'Captain Phillips' but that's a totally different kind of movie.

Posted by Genuine Realist on 2015-08-30 13:21:02

The fact that you use the phrase "SJW" unironically makes it really hard for me to sympathize with your point of view.

Posted by kba99 on 2015-08-30 11:25:30

If the lead family were anything other than white, I have a feeling Cole would likely still see the movie as underwritten and dare I say, still xenophobic. The idea that such a feeling is turned on and off by the presence of white people is woefully misguided and naive.

Posted by kba99 on 2015-08-30 11:22:01

Or, you write a rotten egg review when you feel that that is your opinion and the movie comes in conflict with what you feel it was capable of doing. Am I the only one here who actually read the review?

Posted by kba99 on 2015-08-30 11:19:25

What it means is that you don't write a rotten egg review, decrying a movie for xenophobia and the absence of character development, when it is following a tried and true formula.

Posted by Genuine Realist on 2015-08-29 18:47:03

Might need to find a new job Jake. Your lack of originality and somewhat limited social awareness attempts to rally agreement in "anti-racisim" propoganda only exposes your immediate ignorance to the truth. Role reversal would succumb to nothing but a standing ovation from your lackluster review in which tolerance for evil triumphs over that which is pure. I propose your "slant" has distorted your view of reality while No Escape exposes the need for selfless extol of others. No Escape quite irrevocably establishes the need for hope amongst tyrants like Big Business and rebels who become the monster they fight.

Posted by ReturnToLove on 2015-08-29 14:43:22

Might need to find a new job Jake. Your lack of originality and somewhat limited social awareness attempts to rally agreement in "anti-racisim" propoganda only exposes your immediate ignorance to the truth. Role reversal would succumb to nothing but a standing ovation from your lackluster review in which tolerance for evil triumphs over that which is pure. I propose your "slant" has distorted your view of reality while No Escape exposes the need for selfless extol of others. No Escape quite irrevocably establishes the need for hope amongst tyrants like Big Business and rebels who become the monster they fight.

Posted by ReturnToLove on 2015-08-29 14:33:42

Most of the nationals appeared to be peaceful folk caught in a bad situation. We see several endanger themselves trying to help the family. But the movie was a simple actioner about the family, not a deep Oscar-hopeful commentary on world relations.

I like the "valve" scene. Here's to almost.

Posted by unpleasantfacts478 on 2015-08-29 05:10:31

There was nothing careless about it. And indifferent? This is a story about a family. Not about social justice and white supremacy. Oh, no! They shot it in a country with non-whites! That must mean they despise the people! NO! I'm assuming Argo should get called out at this point for demonizing the Iranian people, right? THEY SAY IN THE FILM THAT THE AMERICANS ARE AT FAULT. They say that THE PEOPLE TRYING TO KILL THEM ARE JUST TRYING TO PROTECT THEIR COUNTRY FROM AMERICA. Yes, I'm yelling. Because it's a ridiculous notion that no one can make a film unless every race, sexual orientation, and disability is covered.

Posted by James Jackson on 2015-08-28 20:47:25

I'm assuming you haven't seen the film. It takes time characterizing the MAIN CHARACTERS in the story. It's more than a vague attempt at writing. See, I've seen the film, and I cared for that family and wanted them to succeed. That's what a movie is supposed to do.

What you are NOT supposed to do is take tons of digressions to characterize someone that's not vital to the story. If the reviewer wasn't so hell-bent on calling this film racist, he would've paid attention when Owen Wilson realized that the people who were trying to kill them were upset that America had taken over the water supply there. It's spelled out.

Then there's the speech that makes a lot of sense, especially with lines like "those people trying to kill you tonight are only trying to protect THEIR families." But, damn, we didn't get to know the people, spend a couple of hours checking out the country, hanging out...

If the lead family were anyone other than white, there would be no cries of racism, even though NOTHING about the film would change except the hue of the skin of the American family. And that's sad.

Posted by James Jackson on 2015-08-28 20:41:16

Die Hard had great characterization. What you cannot do is spend hours and hours with the people of the "land" who don't figure into the plot. When you take that many diversions, you can't call it an action film you'd call it a mess. The movie isn't about the plight of the people. In fact, that speech that the critic derided explained exactly America's culpability in the mess they're in. But, for some reason, because the country's "unnamed," and because the family is white, it's racism.

This reviewer went in with SJW lenses on. The proof is in the review.

Posted by James Jackson on 2015-08-28 20:35:38

So a "friggin' action movie" cannot make a vague attempt at writing, and instead the screenplay must be as lazy and exclusive as possible? Huh. I can think of a lot of action movies that would disagree with you.

Posted by kba99 on 2015-08-28 12:36:04

It is when you're reviewing a friggin' action movie that specifically focuses on an outsider to that country. It's not a socio-political documentary.

Posted by Dudley Morris on 2015-08-28 12:04:37

So... that doesn't mean someone can try something, new or different, even though the idea that there hasn't been a single example of decent characterization in 70+ years of action movies is ludicrous?

Posted by kba99 on 2015-08-28 01:12:09

About 70 years of action movies decries that. They're only two hours long.

Posted by Genuine Realist on 2015-08-27 23:38:21

But then that opens another question--do action/adventure movies need to sacrifice characterization to be thrilling?

Posted by kba99 on 2015-08-27 23:01:21

This doesn't change anything. It's an action/adventure movie - of course non threatening persons aren't characterized. It's like companing that John Ford didn't show Indian family life back at the village.

Posted by Genuine Realist on 2015-08-27 22:23:17

If you read the review, Cole notes that all citizens of the unnamed country in which the movie is set are treated equally irrelevantly, not just the villains.

Posted by kba99 on 2015-08-27 20:36:26

What incredible bigotry. Bad Guys are Bad Guys, McGuffins. They're just there to pose problems for the hero.

Race is irrelevant.

Posted by Genuine Realist on 2015-08-26 17:31:31

Yeah, blatant disregard for a whole country of people is such a stupid thing to get angry about!

Posted by kba99 on 2015-08-26 11:21:19

It's a little difficult to appreciate the art direction or cinematography, for instance, when a film's treatment of a certain group of people is indifferent and carelessly handled.

Posted by Aaron Chan on 2015-08-25 23:57:25

I was wondering why the reviews for this were so bad despite mostly positive comments on the movie itself, but then I realized it upset the (over)sensitivities of the Social Justice Brigade. No wonder. It never stood a chance.